Good. I wish they'd sign more such laws to deal with all the property developments across San Francisco that are stuck in years-long "environmental review" or other similar bureaucratic hurdles put forward by NIMBY groups.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
61–70 of 180 posts
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more feasible is that CA HCD (Housing and Community Development) rejects SF's plan as not consistent with state law, as they recently did to LA[0] (even though LA's plan was really pro-housing overall, there were some equity issues that HCD was unhappy with). SF is considering allowing any property have a 4-plex (6 if at a corner), which may be used as a poison pill to continue to restrict development [1]. [0]…
Okay - serious question - with current building codes - how does anyone tear down a house in SF and rebuild anything - let alone split a narrow lot in 2 and build two duplexes on that? The duplexes would be like 30% stairs, right? This seems like a $5M+ investment to end up with 4 500 sqft 1-window studios (at best) that would be absurdly cashflow negative, and none of them would sell for $1M... SB 9 economically doe…
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU's, aka in-law units, granny units, or garden apartments) are popular, both from legalizing historical unpermitted units as well as new developments. This often happens by taking out part of a garage or unfinished basement.
It's still really hard to do in SF, but sometimes you see parking lots or old small buildings replaced with 4-6 story buildings [0].
As for the four-plex argument, it seems very far fetched to me. The status quo does a lot to restrict housing, but SB9 changes the rules and NIMBY's need to be more creative to continue to restrict housing.
Related, today the AG issued Pasadena on notice for their poor housing policies [1]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-over-1 [1] https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bont...
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning.
> That'll never happen. One of the main reasons SF even has a housing crisis is because they refuse to allow people to build multiple levels upwards bc of zoning. Couldn't the Gov. sign another law stopping that as well? Similar to the legislation around single family housing lots?
County and city also have powers to decide their local planning rules, so it will not be simple would be guess to have state level rule.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like – legislature passed a law, a certain group of people took advantage of the law in ways the general public didn't intend, the courts said "we have to rule by the letter of the law", legislature amended the law, now most people happy again. This is exactly how the process should work.
This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature intended (or if the intention has changed) then they have the power to change their minds. Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. Problem is that legislature has (in general) stopped doing their job so the "functional" court system is forced to re-interpret older and older laws; increasing their p…
Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#65Wouldn't this increase property values and rent too? What was the angle for NIMBY objection ? It seems like this will only increase demand but not the supply - an ideal NIMBY outcome.
It's not really stated explicitly but it mostly boils down to wanting to have the benefits of the place being a college town without too many of the inconveniences of the place being a college town.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's more feasible is that CA HCD (Housing and Community Development) rejects SF's plan as not consistent with state law, as they recently did to LA[0] (even though LA's plan was really pro-housing overall, there were some equity issues that HCD was unhappy with). SF is considering allowing any property have a 4-plex (6 if at a corner), which may be used as a poison pill to continue to restrict development [1]. [0]…
Okay - serious question - with current building codes - how does anyone tear down a house in SF and rebuild anything - let alone split a narrow lot in 2 and build two duplexes on that? The duplexes would be like 30% stairs, right? This seems like a $5M+ investment to end up with 4 500 sqft 1-window studios (at best) that would be absurdly cashflow negative, and none of them would sell for $1M... SB 9 economically doe…
I've seen this problem solved using exterior stairs in the back of the building.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
More like – legislature passed a law, a certain group of people took advantage of the law in ways the general public didn't intend, the courts said "we have to rule by the letter of the law", legislature amended the law, now most people happy again. This is exactly how the process should work.
This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature intended (or if the intention has changed) then they have the power to change their minds. Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. Problem is that legislature has (in general) stopped doing their job so the "functional" court system is forced to re-interpret older and older laws; increasing their p…
Specifically, the US national legislature is failing. /State/ legislatures have no problem passing laws, some really good, and some absolutely terrifying.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
This 1000%. The check that courts have over legislature is constitutionality. If a law is not what the legislature intended (or if the intention has changed) then they have the power to change their minds. Courts do not make laws, they interpret them. Problem is that legislature has (in general) stopped doing their job so the "functional" court system is forced to re-interpret older and older laws; increasing their p…
Also it's good when courts enforce poorly written laws as a forcing function to have law makers (legislature) write useful laws. Sometimes the laws as written are nearly useless
I don't agree. That's an overly-simplified, idealistic view.
Real people suffer real harms from the unintended consequences of poorly written laws. Our courts should help serve as a last line of defense against that, when appropriate.
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay - serious question - with current building codes - how does anyone tear down a house in SF and rebuild anything - let alone split a narrow lot in 2 and build two duplexes on that? The duplexes would be like 30% stairs, right? This seems like a $5M+ investment to end up with 4 500 sqft 1-window studios (at best) that would be absurdly cashflow negative, and none of them would sell for $1M... SB 9 economically doe…
Given the size of the lots in SF, you could easily build 4-plexes that have a lot of windows. They already exist in all the pre-WW2 neighborhoods! Four stories will easily give you four units.
Yes - but how many houses could you tear down and build something like that with CURRENT building codes?
IIUC, you need 6 ft of space on each side of the lot for fire code. That takes away the majority of available floor space. You could build something 4-storeys, but after stairs, you'd be left with half as much leasable floor space...
Re: Gov. Newsom signs law to stop UC Berkeley enrollment cuts
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're interfering with a private lawsuit, and changing laws with retroactive effect to do so. That's what's so odd about this.
No, they're addressing a private lawsuit that was only permitted to proceed because of the court's erroneous (but reasonable) interpretation of the prior law. So the legislature changed the law to make it explicitly clear that these types of lawsuits were never intended by the law.
But the new law explicitly contemplates these types of lawsuits. It doesn't say you can't sue this way. It says colleges and universities who are sued this way can't be compelled to do anything for 18 months. (Which invalidates the court judgment ordering UC Berkeley to stop enrolling students.) It is logically necessary, for this law to exist at all, that the original lawsuit was valid, and that the "remedy" was also valid. It's just that the remedy can't be imposed yet.